The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Optimizing techniques to capture and extract environmental DNA for detection and quantification of fish
Abstract
Few studies have examined capture and extraction methods for environmental DNA (eDNA) to identify techniques optimal for detection and quantification. In this study, precipitation, centrifugation and filtration eDNA capture methods and six commercially available DNA extraction kits were evaluated for their ability to detect and quantify common carp (Cyprinus carpio) mitochondrial DNA using quantitative PCR in a series of laboratory experiments. Filtration methods yielded the most carp eDNA, and a glass fibre (GF) filter performed better than a similar pore size polycarbonate (PC) filter. Smaller pore sized filters had higher regression slopes of biomass to eDNA, indicating that they were potentially more sensitive to changes in biomass. Comparison of DNA extraction kits showed that the MP Biomedicals Fast DNA SPIN Kit yielded the most carp eDNA and was the most sensitive for detection purposes, despite minor inhibition. The MoBio PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit had the lowest coefficient of variation in extraction efficiency between lake and well water and had no detectable inhibition, making it most suitable for comparisons across aquatic environments. Of the methods tested, we recommend using a 1.5 μ m GF filter, followed by extraction with the MP Biomedicals Fast DNA SPIN Kit for detection. For quantification of eDNA, filtration through a 0.2–0.6 μ m pore size PC filter, followed by extraction with MoBio PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit was optimal. These results are broadly applicable for laboratory studies on carps and potentially other cyprinids. The recommendations can also be used to inform choice of methodology for field studies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Biggs, J., Ewald, N., Valentini, A., Gaboriaud, C., Dejean, T., Griffiths, R. A., Foster, J., Wilkinson, J. W., Arnell, A., Brotherton, P., et al. (2015) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.11.029 · Cited by 503
Cited by
Rourke, M. L., Fowler, A. M., Hughes, J. M., Broadhurst, M. K., DiBattista, J. D., Fielder, S., Wilkes Walburn, J., & Furlan, E. M. (2022) · Environmental DNA · doi:10.1002/edn3.185 · Cited by 435
Environmental DNA as an efficient tool for detecting invasive crayfishes in freshwater ponds
Mauvisseau, Q., Coignet, A., Delaunay, C., Pinet, F., Bouchon, D., & Souty-Grosset, C. (2018) · Hydrobiologia · doi:10.1007/s10750-017-3288-y · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Eichmiller, J. J., Miller, L. M., & Sorensen, P. W.
- Venue
- Molecular Ecology Resources
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-05-18
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 56-68
- ISSN
- 1755-098X (ISSN-L)
- 1755-0998
- OpenAlex
- W2059239800
- Cited by
- 250
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Optimizing techniques to capture and extract environmental DNA for detection and quantification of fish. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1755-0998.12421
- The paper
- Eichmiller, J. J., Miller, L. M., & Sorensen, P. W. (2016). Optimizing techniques to capture and extract environmental DNA for detection and quantification of fish. Molecular Ecology Resources. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12421
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.